/k/ - Weapons

So where do you think this is headed? Personally I think there might be a couple of idiots that buy it because FUTURE but in reality I can't see it going anywhere.

A powered / armored suit would be much more practical for EOD / disaster work while being much cheaper to build and maintain.

The future is power armor, not these jokers.

It's like if ED-209 was drawn by a 4 year old

Looks like a statue. When there's video of it moving I'll believe it.

Where's Minovsky when you need him?

>>603403

Kalashnikoff does everythig except proper modernization of AK.

That's how it always starts though.

WW1 tanks were utter garbage that moved about as fast as a brisk walk, barely protected against general gunfire, and frequently bogged down in mud or got stuck in trenches, but all it took was a few decades of autism between WW1 and the end of WW2 for us to wind up with shit that practically laughed at all but the absolute worst mud and trenches while moving faster than Usain Bolt and didn't even notice small arms fire.

I'm not saying we're going to get gundams or metal gears, but this sort of shit only gets better and better until your enemies are calling it a war crime.

>>603403

>Apparently it's for dangerous disaster work like chernobyl, and things like explosive ordnance disposal

Yeah I figured as such, seems impractical for combat situations.

>>603404

a powered armored suit needs to be connected to a remote power supply at all times with current technology being what it is

a mecha can be bigger, stronger and contain its own power supply

>>603474

And also a bigger target, which makes it easier to take down than a tank or cannon.

So just wait for better battery, because power armor is gonna be revolutionary.

>>603456

lold hard

>a platoon of kitted out pic related come running over the hill

>behind them big dogs carrying equipment and mechs

What do?

>>603524

Wonder why I'm watching Chappie again.

>>603527

You should watch Gunhed. Much better movie.

>>603474

We already have tiny diesel generators so the shitty energy density of batteries aren't that much of a limitation.

>>603403

>Although I'm surprised they didn't use tracks. Russians are pretty pragmatic about that.

Kalashnikov Concern makes a whole range (from small ones to 9t ones) of tracked drones for the UGV competition they have ongoing. I don't think the Russian military announced results on what they're buying besides buying UVZ Uran-9 for engineers.

>>603524

>What do?

Retreat on foot for an hour and then counterattack when they're out of gas?

does anyone have that webm of those niggers (in ghana i think) who built a non functioning mech?

How does it move? It looks like some kind of hydraulic system.

>>603534

>UVZ Uran-9 for engineers.

Is that a separate model from the original made just for engineering work? The Uran-9 was horrendously bad from all reports of it that I've seen and needs some serious work before it can be adequately used in combat.

>>603451

I just want to cut into some poor soul's mobile suit with a Heat Hawk, is that so much to ask?

>>603552

Uran-6, sorry. 9 is the combat UGV, 6 is the engineering UGV.

Russian Syrian retex on the 9 was bad but while there was some purely technical issues (nothing really major though, not tough enough electronics mostly) it was bad specifically for high intensity combat operation which what Russia is preparing for.

What they wanted to see is if they could really make something that could act as a tank platoon remotely controlled.

And it can't and won't be possible in their estimate (10 to 15 years), for a fairly long time for reasons of battlefield awareness mostly.

It's still useful for assaulting entrenched position or to be used in defensive lines, etc… but not enough for what they had planned (of basically a drone platoon attached per tank/ifv company).

After that the Russian army said it would pursue UGV funding as a research program and only adopt the Uran-6 (non-combat version).

>>603403

>>603415

>>603523

These designs all have the same problem: they don't take into account how bipedal locomotion works. Human legs aren't parallel; look at the femur. It's angled inward, and your foot falls directly under your center of mass as you walk. Without that, you can't pick up a foot without falling over.

In fantasy, who cares? But anybody trying to pass this off as a real-world device is operating at child-tier levels of fantasy.

>>603560

>Friendly reminder that Hugo Schmeisser actually developed

Friendly reminder that there is no evidence whatsoever that Schmeisser ever designed the Sturmgewehr…

Especially since it's basically an hybrid of a MG 39 and a FG 42 both of which were designed by the same guy… which also designed MG 15, MG 17, MP34, MG 34, MG 39 MG 81 and basically every actually working automatic firearm Nazi Germany ever used but doesn't even get a wiki page…

Do you want to know why?

Because he's called Louis Stange and he's not German.

Schmeisser was a material engineer (like Stoner) and therefore NEVER DESIGNED ANY GUN (again like Stoner).

What he designed is the processing to make reliable guns parts out of sheet metal (which is no small feat, the guy IS the father of all modern firearms… factories) and is indeed incorporated in the AK (and in every firearm done ever since).

The AKM that is.

>>603570

Russiaboo poster everything you say on Russia I have to disregard because I know regardless of the situation you have Vladimirs cock jammed in the back of your throat.

>>603573

>What was his nationality? There is nothing on the internet about him.

The only source I know of mention he was born in Germany but given how little he was mentioned despite his GIGANTIC contribution to the war and German firearm design in general (he just designed all the good ones, no biggie), how he's AFAIK always called Louis or Luis even (instead of Ludwig), Stange being a fairly rare name in German (less so in scandinavian and dutch), that he mostly worked at Waffenfabrik Solothurn (so, in Switzerland), I think we can assume he probably wasn't German enough to deserve any credit for his work.

Better for Schmeisser to take it (which is mentioned everywhere even in projects he had nothing to do with)…

Is there a video of it moving? If not i don't believe it.

Has anybody else noticed the robot has no wrists? It can only roll its hands, it has to angle them using its shoulder and elbow. how are you supposed to defuse a bomb if you can't do fine control movements? It would be litterally impossible to do something like open a car trunk with this, imaging cutting a specific wire or some shit.

There's 0 fucking chance this robot will be any good for bomb disposal.

>>603534

>robots attack you? just run bro they'll run out of fuel

Is it an evil prank? Like telling people to play dead on an angry bear?

>>603560

>it's another post by the resident retard Wehraboo.

False. The AK was largely an independent design, and if Kalashnikov was influenced by anyone, by his own admission it would have been John Garand.

>>603570

>again like Stoner

How do you mean that? Sure, maybe Jim Sullivan deserves a little more credit than he's given, but Stoner designed weapons and not just materials. The M69W and the SR-25 are two examples of this.

>>603606

Just because rifle is fine doesn't mean it can't be better. If nothing else you can integrate the front sight and gas block so that the rifle is better balanced.

>>603587

It's a mockup. But even from those shots it's pretty clear that as far as bipedal locomotion goes, it got all the shit right. 3 degrees of freedom hip joins, 2 degrees of freedom foot joints, inverted knee joins, long stroke high leverage actuators. So they might be actually making it. The arms however looks pretty shitty and undercooked, plus the cockpit visibility doesn't even allows any manipulation using those arms. For a prototype they might either 1) use cameras, but that's a shitty option, 2) design better arms with larger forward extension, but that's bad for posture leverage, or 3) use the same shitty arms because they seem not to care about it. It is as if they are planning on making an actual battle mech. But at the same time, they're seem to commit to hydraulic actuation, emphasizing on strength and disregarding agility, so it's not for battle.

It's a conflicted design.

>>603611

the kalashnikov is a fucking mishmash of mp44 and garandsspring and gas system

>>603608

Those thing are either slower than a man running (even with gear) or they have a really stupid low autonomy (none have a "radius" autonomy, they all have a time autonomy aka: how long the thing can just stay on with it's battery/engine idle, not actively doing something).

Run away: those with decent autonomy won't catch up, those that can will run out of juice very quickly so any form of delaying tactic will work fine.

We can do all sorts of amazing things but energy production and storage really really suck compared to what we can do and are the biggest issue for technological innovation.

>>603611

>How do you mean that?

I meant his work at Armalite. He was a project chief whose main contribution to the design was designing the industrial process to use forged aluminum and synthetic polymers in the fabrication of small arms (which again it's not belittling at all, because this is what is still the standard today, for basically EVERY modern rifle, not just ARs), the design of the guns themselves being far more Johnson (which is never credited for it) and Sullivan (which is now a bit credited for it due to his work solo for Singapore and other).

I know he did made designs largely on it's own after that so it's not really the same, but those are largely obscure.

Stoner and Schmeisser made the gun technology advance a step. Kalashnikov and Johnson (among countless others) made good guns.

Their achievements are just not on the same scale.

Which is why it's ridiculous to try to give Schmeisser credit for "designing" the AK…

>>603620

And the base testing prototypes have no autonomy whatsoever, they're tethered to the power source.

Don't be stupid you nigger mcniggest. They gonna put hefty fuel tanks on the units for fielding, so that they can go a whole day without refueling, maybe more.

>>603621

So they're gonna be as light as possible but packing as much fuel as possible?

OH NOEZ HOW WILL WE BE ABLE TO DESTROY THEM§§§.

I guess they could work as very expensive suicide bombers.

>>603615

>they're seem to commit to hydraulic actuation, emphasizing on strength and disregarding agility, so it's not for battle

What would be a real alternative to hydraulics? The only thing I know about is artificial muscles, but that's more of a concept than anything currently.

>>603623

Robots succumb to a single bullet shot anywhere on the body. Big reveal! As if we didn't fucking knew it since day 1.

Even at that. If you can mass produce them, then it's OK. A human too succumbs to just one bullet shot, a few at most. But robots are disposable and it's OK if one gets destroyed. Humans are not, and you'll be screwed pretty soon if you keep losing your guys.

>>603626

Electric motors of course. Power in = power out, no matter the size. The only issue is cooling all that crap but there are a lot of ways around it: water cooling, phase shift cooling, LN2 cooling, etc.

>>603625

Define design, because according to some people if you draw the isometric view of a tank and jot down the calibre of the gun, the power of the engine and also a the thickness of the armour at a few point, then you designed a completely new vehicle. By these standards we might have to point at someone who worked at the early Battletech games.

>>603628

So you'd have an electric motor for every joint, and use gears to "connect" certain parts, e.g. the equivalents of phalanges?

>>603630

Yes you need its own motor for every joint, that's how it works. You don't use gears though for anything other than speed reduction, small motors are better made high revving so you're kinda locked into using reduction gearboxes if you want to drive a load that's not even 30 rpm.

Wouldn't they make more money by licensing and offering to tool up an American factory to produce Russian design guns that can't be imported due to laws?

2000 dollars for a modern SVD that's well made in a caliber such as 308 or 300 WM.

>>603635

>Wouldn't they make more money by licensing and offering to tool up an American factory to produce Russian design guns that can't be imported due to laws?

I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed too as Kalashnikov Concern is state owned, same with Norinco.

Even FN had legal trouble because of it I think the US congress had to vote or something (or that FN isn't state owned, it has a legally binding control part owned by Wallonia but it's not a majority part).

The laws on dealing with foreign MIC or having foreign state owned/controlled group subsidiaries are notoriously extremely harsh in the US.

>>603560

The AK is a mix of Garand and the AVS36, Schmeisser had fuckall to do with it he's production not R&D.

>>603631

Yeah but then the motor actually has to hold it UPRIGHT all of the time, which is a constant drain even if its not doing any work.

>>603642

Norinco/Polytech is just the export company as I found out some years back. The factory itself is a state owned government arms factory.

>>603643

You can use brakes, you know. Or preload springs such that in its natural position no power input is required. Or even something as simple as worm drives which can only be driven from motor to shaft, but the other way around it locks tight.

>>603564

>M1 Carbine

Ed Browning and David Marshall Williams

>>603643

>Yeah but then the motor actually has to hold it UPRIGHT all of the time

Look at how they build industrial robot arms. They have brakes locking each joint in place when it's not actively moving.

>>604010

They reverse engineered a short stroke gas piston for their long stroke gas piston assault rifle?

>>604006

>says

>AK short stroke gas system

>is a copy of stg long stroke

>one post later

>>604021

>acts like this is some kind of impossibility

What am I reading.

>>604025

The AK uses a long-stroke gas piston. You're thinking of the SKS maybe.

>>604027

You're watching too many larpers like ian.

http://www.gunsopedia.com/Gas-operated_reloading

>A short-stroke gas system is defined as one that diverts high pressure gas from the middle or rear portion of the barrel that impinges on the piston head for a short period of time before excess gas is either cut-off (M14), vented (AK-47), or the piston head reaches a stop (M1 Carbine).[1] The distance the piston travels under pressure is generally less than its diameter.[2] The piston may or may not be attached to the bolt carrier. This is the most common type of gas operation.

>The terms short-stroke and long-stroke are often confused by both laymen and experts. The stroke is that portion of time when combustion gases contact the piston head prior to venting. It is not the total length the piston head might travel during the cycling of the action. The commonly reported misconception is that a piston being rigidly affixed to the bolt carrier is what constitutes a long-stroke system. The AK-47 is commonly referred to as a long-stroke action while the Armalite AR-18 is often used as an example of a short-stroke system. In fact, the stroke is virtually the same and the gas port is in nearly the same location along the barrel for both rifles.

>>604032

From your own source

>A long-stroke gas system is generally defined as one which the stroke of the piston under pressure is greater than its diameter.

Wouldn't that make an AK long-stroke as the vents are ~1.5 piston diameters from the piston face?

>>604036

Not total travel, but the portion of travel under pressure. As in when the bullet is still plugging the barrel and the entire system is pressurized.

>>604040

You could read it as piston cylinder travel under pressure or port to muzzle distance, either way both are greater than piston diameter on an AK.

>>604032

Your "source" is one guy trying in vain to apply automotive terminology to firearms while assuring us that every prior expert and textbook is just "confused". Every actual authoritative source uses the common definition of "follows the bolt all the way/doesn't follow the bolt all the way".

>>604042

>>604065

Ok now you're clinging a bit too much to fudd myths.

>>603564

This begs the question. If Kalashnikov liked the Garand, what did he think of the M14.

>>603403

What does it do when it flips?

HMMMMM?!

Any "mech" with strong arms is not a mech.

>>604110

Isn't it pretty much the same mechanically?